President Trump issued a memorandum on western water that could have large ramifications for the state of California.
Wochit

Friant-Kern Canal delivers 1 million acre-feet of water to farmers throughout the San Joaquin Valley. It is sinking at a dramatic rate, but Proposition 3 would provide $750 million in funding for necessary repairs.(Photo11: Joshua Yeager)

Voters across the Central Valley have been flooded with water initiatives this election season.

President Trump's Western Water Memo sought to "ease regulatory burdens" that he says keeps water out of Valley farms, while Proposition 3 will appropriate billions of dollars to Valley water projects.

Though experts say the benefits of Trump's executive action are unclear at best, Prop. 3 commits $8.9 billion in bonds that would directly benefit water projects throughout the state — many of them concentrated right here in the San Joaquin Valley.

That focus has led to widespread support among Valley voters, according to a new Fresno State poll. Sixty-four percent of Valley residents approve of Prop. 3, while 94 percent agree that "water is as important to the San Joaquin Valley as high technology is to Silicon Valley."

“The results clearly indicate that San Joaquin Valley voters understand that the standard of living and quality of life in the Valley relies on the availability of water to support the food production system to serve a national and global demand for food,” said Thomas Esqueda, executive director of the California Water Institute.

The California Water Institute works to address water challenges throughout the Valley through research and new technology means. They produced the poll in conjunction with Friant Water Authority, which operates the Friant Kern Canal.

The Friant Kern Canal stands to be one of the major beneficiaries of the water bond if it passes on Tuesday. The canal is a major artery that delivers on average one million acre-feet of water to more than 18,000 acres of farmland annually, according to Friant spokeswoman Alexandra Biering.

Friant-Kern Canal delivers 1 million acre-feet of water to farmers throughout the San Joaquin Valley. It is sinking at a dramatic rate, but Proposition 3 could help fund necessary repairs.(Photo11: Joshua Yeager)

But the canal is sinking.

Subsidence caused by severe groundwater overdraft during California's historic drought has led to the canal dropping by as much as an inch per month.

A few inches may seem insignificant, but Biering says it's enough to reduce water flow through the canal by up to 40 percent.

That's a huge problem in wet years since less water is able to travel to recharge sites to replenish groundwater stores, which further increases subsidence.

"It's a vicious cycle," Biering said.

Prop. 3 earmarks $750 million in funds to help with canal maintenance. Biering says the repairs are going to be completed regardless of whether the measure passes, but that the additional funds could significantly expedite and expand the scope of the repairs.

That's a boon to Central Valley farmers who rely on the canal's water for their livelihoods.

It's also why The Sierra Club and nearly every coastal newspaper, from the LA Times to the San Francisco Chronicle, opposes the bond.

Critics say communities who don't benefit from the Valley water projects shouldn't have to foot the bill.

"It's unusual — perhaps unprecedented — for a bond measure to require state taxpayers to fund a federal project," said Sierra Club California Director Kathryn Phillips.

Phillips is also concerned by a lack of oversight and accountability in how the funds are spent. She says the measure reeks of "pay-to-play" tactics that benefit lobby and special interest groups in return for financial support to the proposition's campaign.

The Support Prop. 3 group raised almost $5 million while the opposition campaign received zero dollars in contributions, according to Cal-Access, the Secretary of State's campaign finance database.

Friant-Kern Canal delivers 1 million acre-feet of water to farmers throughout the San Joaquin Valley. It is sinking at a dramatic rate, but Proposition 3 could help fund necessary repairs.(Photo11: Joshua Yeager)

"It doesn't make sense to charge everyone in the state for local benefits," Phillips said. "$8.9 billion is a lot of money, and there's no promise that California's economy will remain strong."

It would cost California taxpayers an estimated $17.3 billion over 40 years to pay off the bonds, according to the state's fiscal analysis.

That's unlikely to deter Valley voters who have felt overlooked and under-served by the state for many years, Esqueda says.

"Coastal communities and people around the globe rely on the produce grown in the Central Valley," he said. "Water infrastructure in the Valley is just as important as freeways and highways in Southern California, which my taxes help pay for."

Statewide 58 percent of voters support the measure, according to a poll by the Public Policy Institute, a nonprofit that neither endorses nor opposes the bond. It requires a simple majority, 50 percent approval, to pass.

If that happens, Esqueda says many of the Central Valley's water woes could be addressed. A significant portion of the bond is dedicated to groundwater recharge, for example.

Though not as "sexy as a dam," Esqueda says groundwater is critically important because it keeps water flowing during dry seasons and drought conditions.

"Groundwater is like a checking account, and we've been over-drafting for a while,' he said. "Recharging gets water back into the ground so it's there for us when — not if — the next drought comes."